I wonder if gzipping the body is sweet spot for use with SOAP. Maybe
the ebXML guys got it right - the body is in the first mime attachment.
Can't recall whether xop/mtom allows the soap body to optimized.
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of
> Michael Champion
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:31 PM
> To: www-ws@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SOAP performance
>
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2004, at 12:55 PM, Robert van Engelen wrote:
>
> >
> > The gSOAP toolkit [4][5] essentially generates a recursive descent
> > parser for an XML schema, i.e. the parser is specifically optimized
to
> > consume instances of that schema [2][5]. The results of this
> > "schema-specific" parsing approach on performance are available in
[3]
> > and a comparison to even faster techniques is presented in [1]. To
> > corroborate Steele's results, another interesting real-world
> > application (SNMP) is discussed in [6] and [7], which also
> > investigates native formats compared to XML with and w/o
compression.
> >
> >
>
> I'm a bit unclear on real-world use cases for schema-specific XML
> parsing. That seems to create a tight coupling between the sender and
> receiver (both have to know the schema to interoperate), and
> intermediaries such as WS-Security aware firewalls that can't
plausibly
> know the schema are infeasible. In other words, that defeats the
whole
> purpose of SOAP/XML, as far as I can tell: If both sides know each
> other's schema, why not just exchange serialized objects? If you
can't
> use the SOAP processing model (e.g. intermediaries that can add and
> process headers), why bother with SOAP?
>
> What am I missing?
>